Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Edward Fang is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Edward Fang.


JAMA | 2013

Tedizolid Phosphate vs Linezolid for Treatment of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections: The ESTABLISH-1 Randomized Trial

Philippe Prokocimer; Carisa De Anda; Edward Fang; Purvi Mehra; Anita Das

IMPORTANCE Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs), including cellulitis or erysipelas, major cutaneous abscesses, and wound infections, can be life-threatening and may require surgery and hospitalization. Increasingly, ABSSSIs are associated with drug-resistant pathogens, and many antimicrobial agents have adverse effects restricting their use. Tedizolid phosphate is a novel oxazolidinone in development for the treatment of ABSSSIs. OBJECTIVES To establish the noninferiority of tedizolid phosphate vs linezolid in treating ABSSSIs and compare the safety of the 2 agents. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS The Efficacy and Safety of 6-day Oral Tedizolid in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections vs 10-day Oral Linezolid Therapy (ESTABLISH-1) was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial that was conducted from August 2010 through September 2011 at 81 study centers in North America, Latin America, and Europe. The intent-to-treat analysis set consisted of data from 667 adults aged 18 years or older with ABSSSIs treated with tedizolid phosphate (n = 332) or linezolid (n = 335). INTERVENTIONS A 200 mg once daily dose of oral tedizolid phosphate for 6 days or 600 mg of oral linezolid every 12 hours for 10 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary efficacy outcome was early clinical response at the 48- to 72-hour assessment (no increase in lesion surface area from baseline and oral temperature of ≤37.6°C, confirmed by a second temperature measurement within 24 hours). A 10% noninferiority margin was predefined. RESULTS In the intent-to-treat analysis set, the early clinical treatment response rates were 79.5% (95% CI, 74.8% to 83.7%) of 332 patients in the tedizolid phosphate group and 79.4% (95% CI, 74.7% to 83.6%) of 335 patients in the linezolid group (a treatment difference of 0.1% [95% CI, -6.1% to 6.2%]). The sustained clinical treatment response rates at the end of treatment (day 11) were 69.3% (95% CI, 64.0% to 74.2%) in the tedizolid phosphate group and 71.9% (95% CI, 66.8% to 76.7%) in the linezolid group (a treatment difference of -2.6% [95% CI, -9.6% to 4.2%]). Results of investigator-assessed clinical treatment success rates at a posttherapy evaluation visit (1-2 weeks after the end-of-treatment visit) were 85.5% (95% CI, 81.3% to 89.1%) in the tedizolid phosphate group and 86.0% (95% CI, 81.8% to 89.5%) in the linezolid group (a treatment difference of -0.5% [95% CI, -5.8% to 4.9%), and were similar for 178 patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from the primary lesion. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Tedizolid phosphate was a statistically noninferior treatment to linezolid in early clinical response at 48 to 72 hours after initiating therapy for an ABSSSI. Tedizolid phosphate may be a reasonable alternative to linezolid for treating ABSSSI. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01170221.


Lancet Infectious Diseases | 2014

Tedizolid for 6 days versus linezolid for 10 days for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (ESTABLISH-2): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

Gregory J. Moran; Edward Fang; G. Ralph Corey; Anita Das; Carisa De Anda; Philippe Prokocimer

BACKGROUND New antibiotics are needed to treat infections caused by drug-resistant bacteria. Tedizolid is a novel oxazolidinone antibacterial drug designed to provide enhanced activity against Gram-positive pathogens. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous to oral tedizolid for treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. METHODS ESTABLISH-2 was a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done between Sept 28, 2011, and Jan 10, 2013, at 58 centres in nine countries. Patients (aged ≥12 years) with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections (cellulitis or erysipelas, major cutaneous abscess, or wound infection) that had a minimum lesion area of 75 cm(2) and were suspected or documented to be associated with a Gram-positive pathogen, were randomly assigned (1:1), via an interactive voice-response system with block randomisation, to receive intravenous once-daily tedizolid (200 mg for 6 days) or twice-daily linezolid (600 mg for 10 days), with optional oral step-down. Randomisation was stratified by geographic region and type of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infection. The primary endpoint was early clinical response (≥20% reduction in lesion area at 48-72 h compared with baseline), with a non-inferiority margin of -10%. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01421511. FINDINGS 666 patients were randomly assigned to receive tedizolid (n=332) or linezolid (n=334). 283 (85%) patients in the tedizolid group and 276 (83%) in the linezolid group achieved early clinical response (difference 2·6%, 95% CI -3·0 to 8·2), meeting the prespecified non-inferiority margin. Gastrointestinal adverse events were less frequent with tedizolid than linezolid, taking place in 52 (16%) of 331 patients and 67 (20%) of 327 patients in the safety population. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation of study drug were reported by one (<1%) patient in the tedizolid group and four (1%) patients in the linezolid group. INTERPRETATION Intravenous to oral once-daily tedizolid 200 mg for 6 days was non-inferior to twice-daily linezolid 600 mg for 10 days for treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections. Tedizolid could become a useful option for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections in the hospital and outpatient settings. FUNDING Cubist Pharmaceuticals.


Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy | 2015

Analysis of the Phase 3 ESTABLISH Trials of Tedizolid versus Linezolid in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections

Andrew F. Shorr; Thomas P. Lodise; G. Ralph Corey; Carisa De Anda; Edward Fang; Anita Das; Philippe Prokocimer

ABSTRACT Tedizolid, a novel oxazolidinone with activity against a wide range of Gram-positive pathogens, was evaluated in two noninferiority phase 3 acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection trials. The data from individual trials showed its noninferior efficacy compared to that of linezolid and a favorable tolerability profile. To evaluate potential differences, the pooled data were analyzed. The patients received 200 mg of tedizolid once daily for 6 days or 600 mg of linezolid twice daily for 10 days. Efficacy was evaluated at 48 to 72 h (primary endpoint), on days 11 to 13 (end of therapy [EOT]), and 7 to 14 days after the EOT (posttherapy evaluation). Treatment-emergent adverse events and hematologic and clinical laboratory parameters were collected. The baseline characteristics were comparable between the treatment groups: 852/1,333 (64%) patients were from North America, and the majority of infections were caused by Staphylococcus aureus. Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid (early clinical responses, 81.6% versus 79.4%, respectively). The early responses remained relatively consistent across various host/disease factors and severity measures. Nausea was the most frequently reported adverse event (tedizolid, 8.2%; linezolid, 12.2%; P = 0.02), with onset occurring primarily during the first 6 days. Fewer tedizolid than linezolid patients had platelet counts of <150,000 cells/mm3 at the EOT (tedizolid, 4.9%; linezolid, 10.8%; P = 0.0003) and during the postbaseline period through the last day of active drug visit (tedizolid, 6.4%; linezolid, 12.6%; P = 0.0016). Efficacy was achieved with a 6-day once-daily course of therapy with the option of an intravenous/oral regimen, and fewer low platelet counts and gastrointestinal side effects were reported with tedizolid than with linezolid, all of which aligns well with antimicrobial stewardship principles. (These studies have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01170221 and NCT01421511.)


Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy | 2013

In Vitro, In Vivo, and Clinical Studies of Tedizolid To Assess the Potential for Peripheral or Central Monoamine Oxidase Interactions

Shawn Flanagan; Ken Bartizal; Sonia L. Minassian; Edward Fang; Philippe Prokocimer

ABSTRACT Tedizolid phosphate is a novel oxazolidinone prodrug whose active moiety, tedizolid, has improved potency against Gram-positive pathogens and pharmacokinetics, allowing once-daily administration. Given linezolid warnings for drug-drug and drug-food interactions mediated by monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibition, including sporadic serotonergic toxicity, these studies evaluated tedizolid for potential MAO interactions. In vitro, tedizolid and linezolid were reversible inhibitors of human MAO-A and MAO-B; the 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) for tedizolid was 8.7 μM for MAO-A and 5.7 μM for MAO-B and 46.0 and 2.1 μM, respectively, with linezolid. Tedizolid phosphate was negative in the mouse head twitch model of serotonergic activity. Two randomized placebo-controlled crossover clinical studies assessed the potential of 200 mg/day tedizolid phosphate (at steady state) to enhance pressor responses to coadministered oral tyramine or pseudoephedrine. Sensitivity to tyramine was determined by comparing the concentration of tyramine required to elicit a ≥30-mmHg increase in systolic blood pressure (TYR30) when administered with placebo versus tedizolid phosphate. The geometric mean tyramine sensitivity ratio (placebo TYR30/tedizolid phosphate TYR30) was 1.33; a ratio of ≥2 is considered clinically relevant. In the pseudoephedrine study, mean maximum systolic blood pressure was not significantly different when pseudoephedrine was coadministered with tedizolid phosphate versus placebo. In summary, tedizolid is a weak, reversible inhibitor of MAO-A and MAO-B in vitro. Provocative testing in humans and animal models failed to uncover significant signals that would suggest potential for hypertensive or serotonergic adverse consequences at the therapeutic dose of tedizolid phosphate. Clinical studies are registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01539473 (tyramine interaction study conducted at Covance Clinical Research Center, Evansville, IN) and NCT01577459 (pseudoephedrine interaction study conducted at Vince and Associates Clinical Research, Overland Park, KS).


Pharmacotherapy | 2014

Single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics and absolute bioavailability of tedizolid.

Shawn Flanagan; Edward Fang; Kelly A. Muñoz; Sonia L. Minassian; Philippe Prokocimer

Tedizolid phosphate is a novel antibacterial under investigation for the treatment of gram‐positive infections. This study was conducted to assess the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of intravenous tedizolid phosphate as well as the oral bioavailability of tedizolid phosphate.


Drug Metabolism and Disposition | 2014

Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion of the Novel Antibacterial Prodrug Tedizolid Phosphate

Voon Ong; Shawn Flanagan; Edward Fang; Howard J. Dreskin; Jeffrey B. Locke; Kenneth Bartizal; Philippe Prokocimer

Tedizolid phosphate is a novel antibacterial prodrug with potent activity against Gram-positive pathogens. In vitro and in vivo studies demonstrated that the prodrug is rapidly converted by nonspecific phosphatases to the biologically active moiety tedizolid. Single oral dose radiolabeled 14C-tedizolid phosphate kinetic studies in human subjects (100 µCi in 204 mg tedizolid phosphate free acid) confirmed a rapid time to maximum tedizolid concentration (Tmax, 1.28 hours), a long terminal half-life (10.6 hours), and a Cmax of 1.99 µg/ml. Metabolite analysis of plasma, fecal, and urine samples from rats, dogs, and humans confirmed that tedizolid is the only measurable metabolite in plasma after intravenous (in animals only) or oral administration and that tedizolid sulfate is the major metabolite excreted from the body. Excellent mass balance recovery was achieved and demonstrated that fecal excretion is the predominant (80–90%) route of elimination across species, primarily as tedizolid sulfate. Urine excretion accounted for the balance of drug elimination but contained a broader range of minor metabolites. Glucuronidation products were not detected. Similar results were observed in rats and dogs after both intravenous and oral administration. The tedizolid metabolites showed less potent antibacterial activity than tedizolid. The observations from these studies support once daily dosing of tedizolid phosphate and highlight important metabolism and excretion features that differentiate tedizolid phosphate from linezolid.


Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy | 2014

Platelet Profile in Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections Receiving Tedizolid or Linezolid: Findings from the Phase 3 ESTABLISH Clinical Trials

Thomas P. Lodise; Edward Fang; Sonia L. Minassian; Philippe Prokocimer

ABSTRACT Tedizolid, the active moiety of tedizolid phosphate, is a recently approved oxazolidinone antibacterial with activity against a wide range of Gram-positive pathogens, including resistant strains such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. To date, 6 days of 200 mg tedizolid once daily has been shown to be noninferior to 10 days of 600 mg linezolid twice daily in two randomized, double-blind phase 3 trials (ESTABLISH-1 and ESTABLISH-2) for the treatment of patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). The intent of this study was to characterize the platelet profiles of patients receiving tedizolid relative to linezolid over the course of treatment using pooled data from these two trials. The occurrences of clinically defined and statistical analysis plan–specified reduced platelet counts were assessed at the study days 7 to 9 visit, the study days 11 to 13 visit, and the posttherapy evaluation (PTE) visit. At the study days 7 to 9 visit, incidences of reduced platelet counts were low and largely similar between the groups. The only notable difference was a lower incidence of thrombocytopenia (platelet counts, <150,000 cells/mm3) among patients who received tedizolid (3.2%) relative to those who received linezolid (5.6%). At the study days 11 to 13 visit, patients who received tedizolid had lower incidences of platelet counts of <150,000 cells/mm3 (−5.9%), <112,500 cells/mm3 (−2.4%), and <100,000 cells/mm3 (−1.9%) than patients in the linezolid group. Similar differences were noted at the PTE visit. Findings across the two phase 3 ABSSSI trials suggest that 6 days of 200 mg tedizolid daily confers a low potential for reduced platelet counts among patients with ABSSSIs. (The ESTABLISH-1 and ESTABLISH-2 trials have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration numbers NCT01170221 and NCT01421511, respectively.)


Clinical Infectious Diseases | 2014

Tedizolid Phosphate for the Management of Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections: Safety Summary

Debaditya Das; Paul M. Tulkens; Purvi Mehra; Edward Fang; Philippe Prokocimer

The novel oxazolidinone tedizolid phosphate is in late-stage development for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs). Preclinical and phase 1 trials have shown that 200-mg once-daily tedizolid phosphate dosing achieves the appropriate pharmacokinetic goals for optimal antimicrobial effect, and a randomized phase 2 dose-ranging trial confirmed that tedizolid phosphate may be an option for the treatment of ABSSSIs at the 200-mg dose, the lowest effective dose, over a mean of 6.4 days of therapy. In the first of two phase 3 trials, 6 days of 200-mg once-daily oral tedizolid phosphate (plus 4 days of placebo) was noninferior to 10 days of 600-mg twice-daily oral linezolid when evaluated at both the early (48- to 72-hour assessment) and test-of-cure (7-14 days after the last dose of active or placebo agent was given) time points. Initial results from the second phase 3 trial (intravenous to oral therapy design) confirm the study met all primary and secondary endpoints and continues to add insight into the clinical utility of tedizolid phosphate.


Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases | 2016

Efficacy, safety, tolerability and population pharmacokinetics of tedizolid, a novel antibiotic, in Latino patients with acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections

Alejandro Ortiz-Covarrubias; Edward Fang; Philippe Prokocimer; Shawn Flanagan; Xu Zhu; Jose Francisco Cabré-Márquez; Toshiaki Tanaka; Julie A. Passarell; Jill Fiedler-Kelly; Esteban C. Nannini

Acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections are caused mainly by Gram-positive bacteria which are often treated with intravenous vancomycin, daptomycin, or linezolid, with potential step down to oral linezolid for outpatients. Tedizolid phosphate 200mg once daily treatment for six days demonstrated non-inferior efficacy, with a favourable safety profile, compared with linezolid 600mg twice daily treatment for 10 days in the Phase 3 ESTABLISH-1 and -2 trials. The objective of the current post-hoc analysis of the integrated dataset of ESTABLISH-1 and -2 was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tedizolid (N=182) vs linezolid (N=171) in patients of Latino origin enrolled into these trials. The baseline demographic characteristics of Latino patients were similar between the two treatment groups. Tedizolid demonstrated comparable efficacy to linezolid at 48-72h in the intent-to-treat population (tedizolid: 80.2% vs linezolid: 81.9%). Sustained clinical success rates were comparable between tedizolid- and linezolid-treated Latino patients at end-of-therapy (tedizolid: 86.8% vs linezolid: 88.9%). Tedizolid phosphate treatment was well tolerated by Latino patients in the safety population with lower abnormal platelet counts at end-of-therapy (tedizolid: 3.4% vs linezolid: 11.3%, p=0.0120) and lower incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events (tedizolid: 16.5% vs linezolid: 23.5%). Population pharmacokinetic analysis suggested that estimated tedizolid exposure measures in Latino patients vs non-Latino patients were similar. These findings demonstrate that tedizolid phosphate 200mg, once daily treatment for six days was efficacious and well tolerated by patients of Latino origin, without warranting dose adjustment.


Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy | 2017

Clinical Response of Tedizolid versus Linezolid in Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections by Severity Measure Using a Pooled Analysis From Two Phase 3 Double-Blind Trials

Taylor Sandison; Carisa De Anda; Edward Fang; Anita Das; Philippe Prokocimer

ABSTRACT Tedizolid phosphate is approved for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). In a pooled analysis of 1,333 ABSSSI patients from the ESTABLISH clinical trials, treatment with tedizolid or linezolid demonstrated similar early and posttherapy clinical responses in nonsevere and severe disease, irrespective of the parameters used to measure ABSSSI severity. Shorter 6-day treatment of ABSSSI, including those that were severe, with tedizolid phosphate demonstrated efficacy comparable to that of 10-day treatment with linezolid. (The ESTABLISH studies discussed in this paper have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifiers NCT01170221 and NCT01421511.)

Collaboration


Dive into the Edward Fang's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Anita Das

George Washington University

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Thomas P. Lodise

Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Andrew F. Shorr

MedStar Washington Hospital Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge